One of the mainstays of the Holocaust revisionist hypothesis has been
John Ball's analysis of the aerial reconnaissance photographs taken over
Auschwitz in 1944 and 1945. Ball purports to demonstrate two things in
his analysis of these photographs: that the photographs prove that mass
executions using poison gas did not occur at Auschwitz; and, that the
aerial photographs were tampered with and altered before Dino Brugioni
and Robert Poirier released their study of the photographs in 1979. John
Ball is so confident of these claims that he has advertised a reward of
$100,000 to anyone who can debunk them. As of the date of this writing,
however, good faith efforts to take up Ball's challenge have been
altogether futile.

Insome
of his claims about what the photographs tell us, Ball sometimes betrays a
surprising ignorance of the broadly accepted historical accounts which he aims
to debunk. For instance, Ball notes that the area surrounding Auschwitz-Birkenau
was being farmed in August 1944, and he expects his readers to draw the conclusion
that the visibility of the camp to outside observers meant that mass murder could
not have occurred in the camp.[1] Apparently, Ball
does not know that the Auschwitz farms were within a much larger "Economic
Zone" under the control of the SS and were worked with prisoner labour.[2]

Despite the inadequacy of his historical knowledge about Auschwitz-Birkenau, Ball
can lay claim to some expertise as an aerial photography analyst, and his theory that
the aerial photographs have been tampered with cannot be dismissed so lightly. Ball is
apparently so convinced by his theory that in March or April 1997 he added a $100,000
reward to his web page as follows:

[IMAGE: "$100,000 Reward"]

To Have Three Air Photo Experts Agree That:

1. The 3D Maps are not accurate copies of the air photos; or
2. Marks were not drawn on August 25, 1944 Auschwitz air photos, as shown in Evidence of Air Photo
Tampering.

NOTE: Each expert has to submit a written report with
conclusions. The three experts each need to state that one of the above two
statements are true. The air photo expert's qualifications need approval by those
seeking the reward, and by the author.[3]

Thefirstclaim does not require the services
of expensive experts. The 3D rendering of the Treblinka photographs, for instance,
shows the death camp area extending to the outer perimeter of the camp even though
there was a strip of barren land between the inner and outer perimeters affording a
full view of the perimeter to the guard towers.[4]
The September 1944 photograph shows most clearly evidence of massive soil
disturbances in the area of the death camp and mass graves, and no evidence of
soil disturbance in the perimeter strip. The outline of the earth wall raised
around the death camp area is plainly visible in the September photograph as an
area of compacted soil.[5]

The second claim is the more interesting of the two, since any tampering with
the aerial photographs would be the first material evidence offered by Holocaust
revisionists of a high level conspiracy to hide the truth about the Holocaust.

On the face of it, it seems absurd to suppose that in 1978,
"a group conspired to alter official government documents to defraud
governments, and manipulate public opinion, to accept only one interpretation of
World War II detention camp history."[6]
The group is unnamed and their motives not specified, and one is left to
wonder whether Ball means that the CIA felt it necessary to bolster the
Holocaust story to protect Israeli interests. Since Holocaust revisionism had
not yet gained the public attention it enjoys today, one also wonders in what way the
Holocaust story needed to be bolstered.

Be that as it may, Ball's challenge was given a great deal of play in the Usenet
newsgroup
alt.revisionism. Revisionists took the
offer of reward as evidence of the strength of Ball's clams. After some discussion
with a group of Nizkor Project volunteers, I sent John Ball a letter
by registered mail
on April 1, 1997 requesting clarification of the terms of his offer of reward.

We were particularly interested in the credentials Ball expected of
an "air photo expert," and we also wished to see some show of
good faith that the $100,000 reward could actually be paid. As one might
expect, the expenses associated with commissioning three separate
reports could be considerable, not to mention the travel and accommodation expenses
for three experts while they worked on the original photographs in the US National
Archives in Washington, DC.

The letter was returned by Canada Post
a few weeks later marked as "Unclaimed." Canada Post also noted that a
pick-up card was placed in Ball's post office box on April 12, 1997 and that they
returned the letter a week later on April 19,1997.

Two copies of a second letter were sent on
May 10, 1997, one to Ball's home address as listed by the Internet Yellow Pages,
and one to the post office box advertised on Ball's web page.

In addition, I sent an e-mail message
to the address advertised on the web
page advising Ball that the letters had been sent.

In the second and third letters, the requests for clarification were
reiterated, and Ball's challenge was tentatively accepted on condition
that some agreement could be reached on three experts and some show of
good faith was forthcoming. In addition, the name of an "aerial photo
expert" was offered as our first nominee.

No reply to the e-mail was ever received, and the letter sent to the supposed home
address was returned by Canada Post marked "Moved, Address unknown.
"

More alarmingly, the third letter, sent to the advertised post office box,
was returned June 10, 1997 marked by Canada Post as "
Moved, Address unknown."

However one might speculate on the reasons for Ball's failure to respond, two
and a half months seems to me to be more than enough time spent on fruitless
attempts to garner any response at all. If John Ball is serious about his
challenge, he should at least acknowledge the attempts to answer it. If he is not
serious, then he ought to remove the challenge from his web page.

Instead, Ball refuses to answer any e-mail from myself or
others. Perhaps we should allow for
the possibility that Canada Post erred in marking the second letter to the
advertised post office box "
Moved, Address unknown."
Postal services do make mistakes, even on registered mail. But it seems as if John
Ball has abandoned the post office box, even though it is still advertised on his web
page. What is one to make of a challenge that cannot be accepted because its author
cannot be contacted?

In the meantime, it is worth noting that one highly
qualified analyst has already examined Ball's claims and dismissed them. Well
before Ball's challenge was posted to his web page, Dr. Nevin Bryant, supervisor
of cartographic and image processing applications at Caltech/NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, examined the photographs with digital enhancement
techniques unavailable to Brugioni and Poirierin 1979, and apparently not used
by Ball in any of his analyses. Dr. Bryant's analysis proves that the photographs
were not tampered with.
[7]

Ball claims that the shadows of the gas induction ports
on the roof of the Krema II gas chamber were drawn on the August 25, 1944
photograph. Bryant has shown that the shadows match other shadows in the
photograph and that the positions of the shadows match the positions of four
concrete objects seen in a late 1942 ground level photograph of the rear of the
gas chamber. To my unpractised eye, the base of the shadows are slightly to the
east of the centre roof beam, as I have previously speculated they should be
based on far less clear copies of the photographs. Ball claims that the presence
of suitably sized holes to the west of the centre beam on the surviving portion
of the roof indicates that the holes were added after the capture of Birkenau.
But in a private conversation with Robert-Jan VanPelt, I learned that the
roof of the gas chamber lifted off of the centre beam and shifted to the west
when the gas chamber was dynamited by the SS in January 1945. Ball himself
unwittingly provides further corroborating evidence that the right number of
holes are in the right places by offering ground level photos which make the
position of the centre beam and the gas induction holes quite clear.
[8]

Michael Shermer, who arranged for
Nevin Bryant's analysis, offered Ball the opportunity to answer Bryant well
before the $100,000 ever appeared on Ball's web page. Ball's sole response
seems to have been to issue his challenge. Certainly the web page itself has
not been altered to acknowledge Bryant's analysis any more than it has been
altered to reflect Ball's apparent unwillingness to accept, much less to
acknowledge, our offer to take up his challenge. Naturally, we are led to
question the genuineness of the $100,000 reward.

Aerial photography and reconnaissance are among the standard tools
used by archaeologists to locate buried settlements. Depending on the
climate and season, disturbed soil may show up as a darker area because
disturbed soil is able to hold more water. Roads, building foundations,
and other earthworks may show up as lighter areas since the soil will
have been compacted and, thus, exclude water. In disturbed soil, the
vegetation may also have a darker colour because it has more water. The
September 1944 Treblinka photograph displays this pattern: the deathcamp and
mass graves area is distinctly visible as an area with disturbed soil. The
May 1944 photograph, on the other hand, shows none of this pattern of soil
disturbance, but May is not only also a drier season in Poland, but the
vegetation had not yet reestablished itself so soon after the closing of the camp.

8.See Ball's ground level photos.
Since the gas chamber roof was supported by a thick concrete centre beam,
Ball's claim is nonsensical that the absence of induction holes directly over
the centre beam proves that no gassing occurred at Birkenau: no one would weaken a
major roof support by cutting through it for any reason.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.